J Street is a dead end

In the final analysis, only Israelis bear the responsibility for determining their future.

j street website 311.
(photo credit:www.jstreet.org)

For over 60 years the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has lobbied on
behalf of the US-Israeli relationship. Drawing on broad popular support for
Israel, US strategic interests and shared values, AIPAC’s successes have been
legion.

It is not by chance that Israel is the largest beneficiary ever
of American peacetime aid, or that the relationship continues to thrive, despite
decades of controversy. Over 10,000 pro-Israel activists will participate in
AIPAC’s upcoming annual conference in Washington. It will be a celebration of
the American-Israeli relationship and of American democracy at
work.

Consensus and unity of purpose have never been a primary Jewish
characteristic. Never content to say yes to success, disaffected supporters of
Israel have in recent years promoted the “non-AIPAC,” an ostensibly alternative
lobby with a selfstyled “pro-Israel, pro-peace” mission.

And here I
thought that we all wanted peace.

Stung by criticism, maybe more
experienced, J Street has actually toned down its official positions and in many
areas they are not that different from AIPAC. Like AIPAC, it supports a strong
US-Israeli relationship, including robust aid and a two-state solution, and
opposes a nuclear Iran.

Crucially, however, AIPAC believes its role is to
promote the bilateral relationship regardless of the governments in office in
the US or Israel and that in doing so it is not endorsing any specific policy,
regarding which there can be legitimate differences, but the relationship’s
long-term vitality and Israel’s security. Over the decades there have been
disagreements between the US and such close allies as Britain and France, but no
one advocated setting up new lobbying organizations.

Second, AIPAC
focuses on strengthening the US-Israeli relationship unconditionally, without
adopting positions on controversial issues such as the peace process, beyond
broad consensual statements such as support for a two state solution. J Street,
conversely, severely criticizes Israel’s policies regarding the Palestinians and
peace process, indeed, promoting its preferred solution to the conflict is its
reason for existing as an alternative to AIPAC. If and when a left-leaning
Israeli government is once again elected in Israel, such as those headed by
Rabin, Peres, Barak and Olmert, will J Street disband? Or will a new lobby be
established every time disagreement arises within the Jewish community? J Street
has also taken a strong position opposing the use of force against Iran. One can
agree or not, but that it is not the point. Most observers agree that the threat
of force is crucial to induce Iran to reach the diplomatic outcome that everyone
– Israel above all – prefers, though if diplomacy ultimately fails, force may
prove necessary. Or does J Street believe that its strategic planning
capabilities exceed those of Israel or the US? Of far less strategic importance,
but no less indicative of its arrogant attitude, J Street recently launched a
campaign entitled “Smear a Bagel, Not Chuck Hagel.” Some pro-Israel advocates
may have over-reacted to his nomination, but J Street does not even harbor any
doubts. Its role, once again, is to be the antithesis to the pro-Israel
establishment.

ALL OF this would be unimportant were J Street not
actively trying to expand its outreach and lobbying activities.

I happen
to agree with J Street that settlement of the West Bank poses a threat to
Israel’s Jewish and democratic character and that a final settlement should be
based on the 1967 lines with land swaps. Guess what? A vast majority of
pro-Israeli Americans and, as the polls have shown for decades, most Israelis,
agree.

The means to promote the two state solution is not by lobbying the
US administration. J Street seems to believe that if only the US would make a
major effort and Israel would cease settling, an agreement would materialize
overnight. It is so much easier to unthinkingly place the blame almost solely on
Israel and the US. In fact, Israel has made dramatic proposals for peace, based
on exactly the kind of settlement J Street advocates, at Camp David and the
“Clinton Parameters” in 2000 and again in Olmert’s proposals in 2008. Yasser
Arafat rejected the deal in 2000, Mahmoud Abbas failed to even respond in
2008.

Moreover, there is reason to
fear that an all-out American effort to push for peace now, when conditions are
far less propitious than in the past, is almost guaranteed to fail and that the
wiser course is to seek incremental change. J Street does not bother considering
whether the Palestinians, deeply divided between the feckless Palestinian
Authority and radical “Hamastan,” are capable of making a deal and, given their
past record, whether they even wish to do so.

Israel’s national security
stands on three pillars – the resolve of its people, the strength of the IDF and
the US-Israeli relationship. Those who endanger any of these pillars, even if
well-intentioned, endanger Israel’s security. If pluralism in thought and
organizational structure has enriched American-Jewish life internally, the unity
in support for Israel was always the basis of the strength of the US-Israeli
relationship.

In the final analysis, only Israelis bear the
responsibility for determining their future. American Jews who are deeply
concerned about Israel’s future have a right to speak out, but the place to
achieve a two-state solution is in the diplomatic arena. The place to advocate
changes in Israel’s policies is within Israel’s democratic process and the
plethora of American- Jewish organizations, many of which take a strong
pro-peace position.

It is not in Washington, lobbying the US
administration. On the US-Israeli relationship American Jews must stand united.
J Street leads only to a dead end.

The writer is, a former deputy
national security adviser in Israel, is a senior fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy
School and the author of Zion’s Dilemmas: How Israel Makes National Security
Policy.